777 2D Cockpit?

[awyeah! 0]

After year's of flying 2d i went and got track ir 5 and changed the whole game and is now more exciting. Some products i still use 2d cause well you know they can't compete, so there is now a benchmark set and after some time using and setting up track ir it's hard to go back. 3d with 2d pop ups took a little time to adjust and better frames bang for your buck for sure.

[pride545 30]

Why doesn't people realize thaT 2D panels are over, done, fini, outdated, not to be done!!! Get over it!!

[ajpongress 467]

Why doesn't people realize thaT 2D panels are over, done, fini, outdated, not to be done!!! Get over it!!

 

Outdated and not to be done according to who? Just because PMDG decides not to model the panels doesn't mean the entire flightsim community should stop using them.

 

Plenty of pilots still use multi-monitor cockpits and undock 2D panels to fit on each screen, creating a simpit made up of just monitors. Cheaper then a real simpit, and more immersive then 1 screen and a 3D VC.

 

The only thing I agree is that people should accept PMDG's decision to not model the 777 with full 2D support and move on from that, i.e. stop making a new forum post about it every month or so.

That decision is over and done with.....not 2D panels as a whole. Big difference.

[ACA857 5]

"Plenty of pilots still use multi-monitor cockpits and undock 2D panels to fit on each screen, creating a simpit made up of just monitors. Cheaper then a real simpit, and more immersive then 1 screen and a 3D VC."

 

That pretty much sums it up for me, without a 2d option, anyone who is using multiple monitors with 2d displays...

 

I did not really want to debate what is better, more to the point was to lobby PMDG to give the users an option to use 2d or 3d, not simply abandon 2d altogether.

 

It's a business decision in a 'free world' economy, we are all welcome to vote with our dollars.

 

Rob.

[paulyg123 135]

I use the 2D panel all the time. I have a reallly fast system, dual monitors, Track IR (which I hate). So that is NOT my reason for using 2D. It is my preference. For me, I need 3D zoom at 40% to get the instruments and runway in full view. At 40%, the runway seems to move way too fast. It may sound dumb, but Track IR in 3D gets me motion sickness after 30 mins. I'll have to adapt to the 777 3D I guess - but I'd pay $100 moe for a 2D main panel, FMC and throttle quad.

[EGLL77W 1,508]

The only thing I agree is that people should accept PMDG's decision to not model the 777 with full 2D support and move on from that, i.e. stop making a new forum post about it every month or so.

That decision is over and done with.....not 2D panels as a whole. Big difference.

 

:clapping:

[pride545 30]

Outdated and not to be done according to who? Just because PMDG decides not to model the panels doesn't mean the entire flightsim community should stop using them.

Outdated and not to be done according to who? Just because PMDG decides not to model the panels doesn't mean the entire flightsim community should stop using them.

I did not say or imply that the whole community should stop anything.This is the PMDG forum and that is who my reply was pertaining to...Chill out!

[kevinh 409]

You mentioned using shift A, so I'm not sure why you later mentioned cycling back around again. Worthy point on the VC view jumps. RealAir did this with their Duke and Lancair and it makes it easier, but only slightly. I've never used the MCP in a 2D mode in the 737, and I'm not sure why you'd need a 2D rendering of it. CDU is about the only thing

I mentioned the hotkey idea, because that gets around the need to buy EZCA to get the most out of the VC, and replicates the easy of navigation in the 2D panel set-up. If PMDG had hotkeys for all their VC camera views then the VC would be without doubt the best position to operate the sim from and no need to buy addons like EZCA or TrackIR to get the best out of it. It could even end the 2D v VC debate. Now there's a thought!

Not this argument again...

The VC is a dynamic 3D rendering of 3D space. 2D is a static 2D rendering of 3D space. Actually, you know what. I've had this argument so many times that I'll just start quoting my old posts:

Yes it is an old argument, but valid all the same. You view the VC in 2D, simple as that. I'm not trying to devalue the idea of the VC, but calling it 3D makes it sound more lifelike than it is. If the eyepoint is fixed the view is only 2D. You only see internal parallax changes if you move the eyepoint around in the cockpit, as in TrackIR or EZCA. Neither of these are native FSX features.

Decent analogy, but the film would be jerking because someone is trying to hold it too tightly. The images from our eyeballs are not really dampened by our brain that much. If you've ever sat through some really rough turbulence, or driven on a really bumpy road, you'd see it very clearly - actually, by clearly, I mean poorly. When you walk, your mind isn't filtering out what's going on, it's correlating what you're seeing and what you're doing.

It doesn't really matter how the jerkiness is smoothed out, it's the fact that it is smoothed out that is important. The mind is processing the raw data it receives. If you view an image of reality this processing is different. Again this doesn't negate the value of the VC, it is what it is, but it undermines the idea that it is a perfect rendition of reality (which it certainly is not in FSX).

 

I think the 2D v VC debate is essentially about ease of use. If you make it easier to use, with camera hotkeys for example, more people will adopt it. As long as the cockpit building fraternity are properly catered for then it that case a 2D panel set would indeed become redundant.

[liewweiyao 0]

No please! The progress of the PMDG B777 is already so slow. If they were to spend time doing up the 2D panel wont the release date be something like the year 2030?

[BrzI 26]

but Track IR in 3D gets me motion sickness after 30 mins.

 

Same here. Plus the 40-60% performance gain at busy airports is not to be ignored. It does not have to be part of the default package. In fact it can be an optional download with the clear understanding that there will be no support for it. I would settle for that just fine.

 

Just my two cents.

[Guest Mik75]

I'd really love to have 2D panels too! In my opinion, 2D panels should be included in every "serious" release, at least with complex airliners!

Except for the taxiing, the takeoff and the landing, I do all other things (preflight, FMC programming, cruise flight etc) with the 2D panels.

[Jetstream96 20]

It's not only a matter of "like" or "dislike" 2D panels. However, many people like me "need" 2D panels to fly, or fps will drop significantly with PMDG's detailed model. Not everyone has the money to upgrade their PC, OK?

[EGLL77W 1,508]

2-D's are so FS9 ;-)

[AAfan 49]

I know this has been beaten into the ground but the major argument is that you have to move your view in 3D to see everything, well guess what, you have to move your head around a good amount to see everything on a real plane too :smile2:

 

Grabbed a quick picture today to show how you really have to move your head to see stuff, that is looking straight at the instruments, cant see up or outside at all!

[pete_auau 1,168]

2-D's are so FS9 ;-)

lol, and whats wrong with fs9